1:1 computing strategies in Tasmanian schools Fluck & Twining

REDEFINING EDUCATION: 1 TO 1 COMPUTING STRATEGIES IN TASMANIAN SCHOOLS

Andrew Fluck & Peter TwiningUniversity of Tasmania, Launceston & The Open University, Milton Keynes (UK)

Abstract

The Digital Education Revolution (DER) faced significant challenges in Tasmania because of its distributed regional population. This resulted in the Year 9-12 DER funding being diluted in high schools to support Years 7-8, outside the scope of the policy intention. In addressing this challenge, two Tasmanian high schools adopted different strategies to introduce, maintain and integrate 1:1 computing. The first school took a strategic and informed decision to provide netbooks to all students in 2008 (prior to DER). These netbooks subsequently percolated through the entire school and all curriculum areas. The second school saw the potential in user-owned equipment at an early stage, and negotiated administrative hurdles. These related to the security of the equipment (and potential breakages) and access to the institutional wireless network. Students were allowed to bring their smartphones, netbooks, tablets and laptops to school. Both schools were visited to gather data through questionnaires, observations and interviews. This paper illustrates the differences and commonalities between these two schools, exploring the decision-making around ‘all the same’ and ‘Bring Your Own (BYO)’ policies. The learnings from these schools should inform future practice and link with emerging trends emanating from related studies in other Australian and UK schools.

Keywords: 1:1 computing, mobile devices, BYO, BYOD, BYOT, student ownership, curriculum integration

Context

Some schools in the island state of Tasmania adopted one to one laptop policies as early as 1996. St. Michael’s Collegiate School (for girls) introduced such a policy for Years 5-12 in that year. The Friends School (co-educational and also situated in the capital, Hobart) introduced a similar policy based on Apple Macintosh laptops in 1999 (Westwood & Dobson, 1999). In a state with a small but distributed population, these examples became known and accepted quite quickly. Inevitably, such policies can evoke disparate reactions from parents. Rosemary Sargison, a key figure in establishing the Collegiate policy, told of one family withdrawing their child from the school because of the policy; but an entire additional class of children enrolling for the same reason.

An Australian Research Council Linkage Project (LP0210823) investigated the possibility of one-to-one provision in government schools (Fluck, 2008). This used cheaper handheld computers (e.g. HP Ipaq & Palm Zire) in conjunction with offline versions of online learning materials for health education in Year 8. A critical part of the project was to equip whole classes with individual handheld computers. One such class was in School 1 (see Table 1 below). A key finding of the project was that ‘trust’ was a key ingredient for successful one-to-one implementation. Interviews with school staff at the end of the experimental period made it clear they did not expect the handheld computers to survive or be returned. However, by entrusting them to individual students, and condoning personalization, the researchers demonstrated this assumption was incorrect. School 1 adopted a one-to-one netbook program in 2009 to counter intense competition for enrolments when the competing school in the city was rebuilt. This strategy successfully countered the new buildings, and the school successfully leveraged the netbooks into subsequent years. Initially based on school-provided equipment, this morphed over the years to an optional BYO program.

Meanwhile, at the national level, the incoming Australian government of 2007 swiftly implemented its

1:1 computing strategies in Tasmanian schools Fluck & Twining

undertaking for a Digital Education Revolution to equip all students from Years 9-12 with computers throughout every school day (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008). However, this policy was put into practical effect by state governments in different ways. New South Wales, for instance, lobbied and won additional funds to commit an individual netbook to every student in the age-range, and contracted with IBM to install wireless networks in all affected schools. Tasmania by comparison chose to replace old desktop computers with new ones, and considered equity issues in schools where only half the students fell into the designated age-band. This diluted the impact in government schools.

Looking again at a single school in Tasmania, the role of individual staff can be seen as crucial. An internationally acclaimed key teacher at School 2 built upon her reputation to achieve a BYO policy by 2009. This was not achieved easily, in the face of organizational inertia. Understandably, cyber safety is a topic to which administrators are sensitive (Department of Education, 2013), and therefore permitting access to the Internet via government-provided wireless networks was contentious. Despite this, a ‘DoE Guest’ virtual private network was created in School 2 (and subsequently state-wide) which allows students and staff BYO Internet access but not peer-to-peer connections.

These individual actions, school histories and state-wide policy implementations made up the background to these two case studies.

Methodology

The two cases reported in this paper form part of a series of 13 studies carried out in Australia between September and December 2013, which are referred to as the Snapshot Studies (see http://edfutures.net/Technology_Strategy_Case_Studies#The_Snapshot_Studies). These complement 22 studies carried out in England between September and December 2012, which are referred to as the Vital Studies (Twining, 2014a).

The Snapshot Study schools were selected based on the researchers’ local knowledge of schools that were engaged in the implementation of mobile device strategies. Table 1 provides a summary of these two Snapshot Study schools.

Table 1Summary of the Snapshot Study schools reported here

School 1 School 2

Type State State

ICSEA* between 950 and 960 between 1097 and 1103

Phase Secondary Secondary

No. students on roll between 550 and 630 between 770 and 820

Digital technology strategy 1:1 netbook strategy, but in January 2013 moved to a BYO approach

BYO strategy since 2010, gradually extending it from Year 7 to all year groups

Year group(s) observed 7 & 8 7

* The ICSEA value measures the socio-economic background and rurality of the school: the norm is 1000, with lower values indicating disadvantage.

The Snapshot Studies used a cut down version of the methodology used in the Vital Studies (see http://edfutures.net/Research_Strategy). The Snapshot Studies involved data collection prior to and during one day spent in school by the researchers. As one might expect given the practicalities of doing research in schools, there were minor variations from the standard methodology in each of the Snapshot Study schools. These are summarised in Table 2.

1:1 computing strategies in Tasmanian schools Fluck & Twining

Table 2 Variations in the methodology

School 1 No SLT questionnaire or interview2 Teacher questionnaires (rather than 1)2 Student portfolios (rather than 4)No parent interview2 observations (rather than 1)2 Teacher interviews, one was very short (rather than 1)No student focus group

School 2 2 Teacher questionnaires (rather than 1)3 Parent questionnaires (rather than 1)No Parent interview2 Observations (rather than 1)2 Teacher Interviews (rather than 1)No student focus group

Ethical approval for the Snapshot Studies was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC) in all of the researchers’ universities. This ensured that the Snapshot Study research complied with the British Educational Research Association’s guidelines for educational research (BERA, 2011) and with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, 2013).

Data analysis

Emergent Themes Analysis (based on Wong and Blanford, 2002) was used to identify ‘emerging trends’ from the 22 Vital Case Studies (Twining, 2014a). This analysis was then extended to include the 13 Snapshot Studies.

School 1School 1 had institutionalised the processes for parents to select a school-provided netbook or choose to send a BYO machine with their child. Most (about 90%) still opted to have a school-provided netbook. This was an ACER TravelMate B113-M, priced at $590 (not a cost to parents except in the case of loss or damage); parents paid a $60 levy each year as a contribution towards software licencing. Students signed a care agreement, which included a requirement that devices are always charged overnight. The most significant potential damage to these machines was a broken screen: hence the decision to provide a hard clam-shell case (Figure 1) and an automatic procedure to bill parents for this kind of breakage. Insurance costs were prohibitive, so the school used its own technical support staff to replace shattered screens.

Students were permitted to bring their own devices (BYO) but the school asked that the device complied with the following standards:

i) Windows 7 or 8, Apple MacBook or iPadii) It must be able to create files in Microsoft Office format – Word, Excel and PowerPoint (Pages,

Numbers and Keynote for iPad).iii) It should be easy to carry, easy to secure, have a minimum 6 hours battery life, and WiFi.

The school documentation stated “mobile phones do NOT count as a device”.

1:1 computing strategies in Tasmanian schools Fluck & Twining

Figure 1: School 1 netbook in hard shell case

Figure 2: School 1, Year 7 History class

The observed class was undertaking a Year 7 History lesson focused on ancient Chinese dynasties (see Figure 2). The teacher had prepared a WebQuest, which the students accessed from the learning management system (Fronter) using their computers. Responses to the questions posed were to be written up in a Word document, then uploaded into Fronter for teacher review.

The students encountered several problems, but were mostly able to accomplish the task. Some had password problems, which indicated a lack of embedding into the curriculum; if computers were used all day, every day, this issue would be minor because students would have solved it much earlier (this was half-way through the final term of the school year). Some of the links provided on the WebQuest worksheet were barred by the cyber-safety firewall filter, so students were not able to access the content. This was a surprise to the teacher, and points to the need for teachers to be able to access the Internet (at times, and even from home where a lot of preparation is done) just as student would. Without this strategy, such barriers come as a complete surprise to the best-prepared teacher. Finally, the bandwidth available for seeking information can limit the speed of access, and for this class, it was sometimes quite slow. The wireless network appeared to be quite congested, and the off-site VLE server was a critical element in slowing learning for this class. However, when students accessed third-party learning resources, this increased their motivation and capacity to engage with the differences

1:1 computing strategies in Tasmanian schools Fluck & Twining

between the mindsets of various Chinese historical emperors.

Examples of the question students worked on (and responses) are shown in Figure 3.

You have been asked to research either the Shang, Zhou, Qin or Han Dynasty.

Name of the Emperor: The first Emperors name was Shi Huangdi.

How did he rule? What was his style of leadership?Shi ran his dynasty under absolute control and punishment.

What were some of the rules during this dynasty?One of his rules was that people had to spy on each other at work, at home, Etcetera. If people turned in lawbreakers they were rewarded if they didn’t they were executed.Another rule was that if people or peasants slacked off when they were working they were sent to the Great Wall to work.

Philosophies and beliefs:Shi was a legalist he believed that all people were bad. He believed that you had to control and regulate everyone’s lives.

Inventions/discoveries/major achievements:He introduced a currency. He also introduced a written language for all of China to learn. He introduced a law group similar to the police we have today. He also introduced a way to measure lengths and weights.

Figure 3: Chinese Dynasties worksheet with student responses

Students reported using devices in around half of their lessons. Generally this was for research (in history); for solving mathematics problems; or for taking notes in other lessons.

A subsequent Year 8 class used Fronter in a similar way. Their task was to prepare “a creative product, which could be a newspaper article, interactive PowerPoint, etc. Write it from the perspective of a little Aztec boy.” One student had not charged up their netbook (perhaps because of shared parenting arrangements) and was required to use an exercise book instead – a natural consequence of being unready for the class. Off-task behaviour was easily hidden: one student was on a quiz website when questioned, but quickly flicked the screen back onto the classwork. In explanation, the student claimed schoolwork could always be finished outside school. However, just as off-task behaviour was easily undertaken, about half the students worked independently on the set task.

School 2School 2 had a more advantaged background with virtually all parents providing computers for their Year 7 students. From 2011 the majority (~80%) of students brought their own Windows notebook to school, with Macbooks (~15%) and iPads making up most of the remainder. Some students brought more than one device (see Figure 4), and selected whichever best fitted the learning activity at any particular time. The learning area leader - Digital Technologies noted that “parents are encouraged to not spend too much ($400 -$600) and to get something small so that it is light, easy to carry and can fit on the desk with their books. We make use of open source to help reduce costs (e.g. OpenOffice instead of [Microsoft] Office)…. Cloud storage is a valuable way to stop students not being able to

1:1 computing strategies in Tasmanian schools Fluck & Twining

continue work because they have not got their device” (personal communication, December 6, 2013). School 2’s acceptable use agreement was quite explicit about the breadth of choice for students: “Student Owned Devices = any ICT device that a student owns and brings to school e.g. iPod, tablet, netbook or laptop, personal data assistants (PDAs), cameras, mobile / smart telephones, etc.”.

In the first observed class, Year 8 students were undertaking a negotiated task at the end of the year, to be assessed against English and History curriculum criteria. Most students appeared to be on task, and when asked, thought that off-task behaviour was generally minimal throughout the year when using computers for lessons. Once again evidence suggested self-directed ‘flipping’: where students claimed to finish classwork at home after the end of the school day. As the school had an open BYO policy, there was a much greater variety of devices in use. One student had a Windows tablet, and reported that text could be input almost as quickly as when using a standard keyboard.

Figure 4: School 2 - "I'll just charge up my phone this lesson"

The last observed class was in a science laboratory. The teacher used the interactive whiteboard to administer a short multiple-choice quiz at the start of the lesson, and reviewed answers at the end. The focus of the lesson was the effect of Earth’s rotational axis on the seasons, using a worksheet located in Fronter (but paper copies were given to students who had no device, and who also wrote on paper). Students in this class regarded Fronter, Google (search) and Wikipedia as the most used ‘applications’ across the curriculum.

Student portfolios from this school illustrated a wide repertoire of applications, such as PowerPoint for demonstrating knowledge of solar energy in science; BAMZOOKi for creating an attractive ‘creature’; and Word for writing up an essay. This dovetailed well with the school’s vision to be a centre of excellence for innovative creativity and excellence in teaching and learning.

Discussion

As with any of the Snapshot Studies, it is important to realise that most schools will have presented a best possible face to external investigation. The leaders in these two schools appeared to be realistic about the vital role of teachers in the implementation of their mobile technology strategy. Teachers reacted to technical aspects of the computers actually in the classroom for each lesson, being more likely to use computers in subsequent lessons if things went well. On the other hand, if students were unable to access Fronter (because they had forgotten their password or their device was not charged) then teachers were unlikely to rely upon this method of handing out worksheets. This increased their workload, since paper copies were still needed.

Both schools offered a form of BYO. One still offered a subsidised choice for parents, and had an historical policy of institutional provision to individuals, from which it was difficult to retreat. The other had never made this kind of subsidised provision, and after just two years had created a culture whereby most students brought a parent-funded (and maintained) computer to school. This reflects

1:1 computing strategies in Tasmanian schools Fluck & Twining

different funding models that were evident in the Vital Studies (see Table 3).

Table 3: Funding model

School funded The school pays for all the digital technology used in the school. This funding might come from specific project funding or commercial sponsorship, but not from parents.

Subsidised Parents make a (voluntary) contribution towards the cost of digital technology that is used in the school, often in the form of monthly payments over several years.

Hybrid Parents make a (voluntary) contribution towards the cost of a mobile device for their child, or if they already have a suitable device at home then their child uses that.

Home Parents buy a mobile device that their child uses in school.

With the ending of the DER funding, schools are inevitably moving towards BYO models. In order to inform their decision making, an initial step should be to audit the Internet-enabled mobile devices that their students have at home, and which they could use in school. This could be done using a free service such as that provided by Your Own Technology Survey (YOTS) – see http://www.yots.org.uk. However, a BYO approach may mean that students bring in a wide range of different devices. The breadth of choice of devices in School 2 had the potential to make further difficulties for teachers. Alongside ‘planning for failure’ (which means paper copies of worksheets were sometimes needed for students without a compatible or working device), there was the additional worry of digital materials not working on a student’s device. A good example was the highly valued Scootle repository of Australian online learning objects. Many of these interactive resources use Flash – a technology that is not well supported on Apple iPads unless a third party browser like iSwifter is installed – for a cost. Form factor was another significant issue to be considered, with schools navigating between smaller screens on mobile phones and larger ones on full-size laptops. Aligned with this could well be the physical inactivity and posture implications of day-long use of particular computing devices. This complex territory is just beginning to be charted.

In School 1 there was an advisory framework around parent-supplied computers, which provided a modicum of file-format compatibility between students’ and teachers’ devices. School 2 had a much looser specification with a high emphasis on adoption of open source software. Given the higher socio-economic status of the School 2 community, this seems counter-intuitive, but makes sense given the breadth of equipment choices available. These differing approaches to BYO aligned with work in Queensland (The State of Queensland, 2013), which introduced the notion of BYOx, as explained in Table 4.

Table 4Approaches to BYO

BYOD Students are allowed to bring their own devices from home to use in school. Students have to register their devices (e.g. provide the MAC address) so that the school can manage access to and use of the school network.

BYOT Students are allowed to bring in their own devices from home to use in school. They do not have to register their devices and can use the school network to access the Internet (usually using their individual username and password).

BYOx Students are allowed to bring in their own devices from home to use in school, so long as they meet school requirements. These requirements might specify a specific device (e.g. an iPad), a whitelist (e.g. any one of a number of specified devices), or a technical specification (e.g. the device must be able to create and edit Microsoft Office format documents, access the Internet via WiFi and a browser).

In both schools there was an operating wireless network. These were essentially the same state-wide offering for guest access to the Internet via government filters. However, the local implementations appeared to be somewhat different, with no perceived congestion at School 2. The speed of Internet access in School 1 negatively affected the observed lesson, and if replicated school-wide would reduce learning opportunities, providing a(nother) reason for teachers to avoid using the technology. Managed WiFi networks appear to be the answer to load balancing and mobile users, so the correct kinds of

1:1 computing strategies in Tasmanian schools Fluck & Twining

wireless access points with compatible management software may be the solution here. Schools provide a rather harsh environment for this technology since the timetable forces large numbers of users to load and save files simultaneously. This requires the network to handle huge peak flows of data with ease, rather than traffic distributed evenly over the day. It is clear that having an adequate wireless network is critical to maximizing the educational potential of mobile devices in schools (Twining 2014b).

In summary, these two schools were blazing a trail for many other Tasmanian government schools. Catholic and independent schools have a much easier governance process for putting computing devices onto the annual booklist for students, whilst government schools need to provide support mechanisms for all parents. Perhaps the most significant impact for these schools will be the long term effects of trusting students to care for equipment and the introduction of a state-wide guest wireless network.

References

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2013). Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated December 2013). Canberra: Australian Government.

Bassey, M. (1998). Action research for improving educational practice. In R. Halsall (Ed.), Teacher Research and School Improvement: Opening Doors from the Inside (pp. 93–108). Buckingham: Open University Press.

BERA. (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational research (2011). London: BERA. Retrieved from http://bera.dialsolutions.net/system/files/3/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf

Burgess, R. G. (1984). Issues in educational research: qualitative methods. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrision, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

Department of Education (Tasmania) (2013). Online safety in Tasmanian government schools. Retrieved from https://www.education.tas.gov.au/documentcentre/Documents/Infosheet-Health-CyberSafety.pdf

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2008). Success through partnership: Achieving a national vision for ICT in schools: Strategic Plan to guide the implementation of the Digital Education Revolution initiative and related initiatives. Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/

Fluck, A. (2008). AlwaysOn Case Study. Australian Flexible Learning Framework, 2.0 (1) pp. 1-44.

Hammersley, M. (1995). The politics of social research. London: Sage.

Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

The State of Queensland. (2013). BYOx research project. Brisbane: The State of Queensland (Department of Education, Training and Employment). Retrieved from https://byox.eq.edu.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/byox-project-research-report.pdf

Twining, P. (2014a). Redefining education: 1 to 1 computing strategies in English schools. Now it’s personal, ACEC, Adelaide, September 2014.

1:1 computing strategies in Tasmanian schools Fluck & Twining

Twining, P. (2014b). Digital technology strategies. EdFutures.net. Retrieved from http://edfutures.net/Digital_technology_strategies

Twining, P., Evans, D., Cook, D., Ralston, J., Selwood, I., Jones, A., Underwood, J., Dillon, G., Scanlon, E., Heppell, S., Kukulska-Hulme, A., McAndrew, P., & Sheehy, K. (2005). Tablet PCs in schools: Case study report. Coventry: Becta. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/6407/1/BTE_case_study_print.pdf

Westwood, P., & Dobson, L. (1999). Implementing a successful laptop programme, International Schools Journal, 19, 1, 56–65.

Wong, B. L. W., & Blandford, A. (2002). Analysing Ambulance Dispatcher Decision Making: Trialing Emergent Themes Analysis. London. Retrieved from http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/16628/1/16628.pdf

Woods, P. (1986). Inside Schools: Ethnography in Schools. New York: Routledge.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park (CA): SAGE Publications.